Is Freedom of Expression Dead? A Roadmap for Free Speech in the Age of Democratic Backsliding

Highlights from our joint virtual panel with EFF: UN Special Rapporteur Irene Khan and digital rights experts unpack how democratic backsliding and tech monopolies are reshaping free speech worldwide

On July 8, 2026, the Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression (CELE) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) convened a global panel of experts, diplomats, and advocates to discuss some of the most pressing questions on the state of freedom of expression worldwide. As Agustina Del Campo, CELE’s director, said in her opening remarks, the fact that the conversation was originally scheduled as an in-person session at RightsCon, which was cancelled due to foreign pressure on the Zambian government, is telling of the frail state of freedom of expression worldwide.

This roundtable marked one of the final public appearances of Irene Khan as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, whose tenure ends in July 2026. Alongside Swedish Ambassador for Human Rights Irina Schoulgin-Nyoni, ARTICLE 19’s Head of Law and Policy Chantal Joris, and EFF Senior Legal Counsel David Greene, the discussion, moderated by CELE researcher Nicolás Zara, started by analyzing current restrictions to freedom of expression based on national security, the protection of democracy, and child safety.

On freedom of expression and national security

Special Rapporteur Irene Khan began by contextualizing the state of freedom of expression in the world: only 7% of the world’s population lives in liberal democracies, and many of these democracies are backsliding. This has led to the normalization of what she calls the securitization of freedom of expression: while autocratic states have always used national security laws, counterterrorism laws to silence speech, now we see backsliding democracies using those same tactics in Latin America, in Asia, and –surprisingly– in Western Europe and North America, which have historically been the champions of human rights, and freedom of expression. She added that now the most powerful state in the world “has not only ignored international human rights law, but has actually retaliated against governments that are seeking to uphold it”. As an example, she cited the retaliation measures from the United States against Europe in the context of the Digital Services Act, where the US tried to insulate the behaviour of US-based platforms against that legal regime with tariffs, sanctions and threats. She pointed to the process of “commodification” of freedom of expression, where such right is treated as a bargaining chip, and tariffs are used to control the flow of expression.

Expanding on the securitization of freedom of expression, ARTICLE 19’s Head of Law and Policy Chantal Joris signaled that the impact of armed conflict on freedom of expression exceeds the parties and territories directly involved, citing that the speech surrounding the situation in Israel and Palestine has been at the center of censorship internationally. This spills over to online content moderation; for instance, in the UK, where Palestine Action has been declared a terrorist group, and the Online Safety Act requires platforms to act against terrorist content. She also mentioned how the Russian invasion of Ukraine ended up with the complete ban of Sputnik and Russia Today, infringing upon the rights of Europeans to access information. Additionally, she warned against extending the language of armed conflict to peacetime, noting that States increasingly speak of “hybrid warfare” and “psychological warfare” even in the absence of armed conflict but rather where an “information threat” is perceived to emanate from a specific actor. This language of armed conflict –she added- is sometimes invoked to justify quite broad restrictions on freedom of expression as well. 

Expanding on the relation between human rights and security, Ambassador Irina Schoulgin-Nyoni argued that, rather than controlling the debate, the best way to build a resilient public is to make sure that freedom of expression is respected and that people regain trust in their societies. As for external threats, she remarked that Sweden is training its public officers and –most importantly– raising awareness among its people to help them understand what information manipulation could look like. The Swedish “psychological defense” approach, she added, has to do with civic responsibility and building a resilient democracy.

On age-gating and design-based restrictions 

EFF’s Senior Legal Counsel David Greene referred to a different aspect of the retreat of freedom of expression. He contextualized that the legislative efforts to age-gate the internet can be better understood as an updated version of a historic and longstanding authoritarian tendency: that of trying to deny young people access to information. The democratic backsliding in many countries –he added– makes it a disastrous time to hand governments the mandate of restricting access to information, entertainment, and culture for minors and to deprive them of a platform to speak to the world. He observed that the technical questions around age verification are important, but focusing only on them means losing the free speech battle. This should not be about how we deprive young people of their rights but whether we should do it at all.

Greene also cautioned against too much enthusiasm for the recent jury verdicts in New Mexico and California that held social media companies civilly liable for harming minors who used their products. Each is based on legal findings that could threaten rights-protective features such as encrypted communications and threaten protected speech. While he believes that some design features might be subject to less rigorous legal protection than online speech itself, he expressed skepticism about whether many efforts to regulate design features were truly unrelated to concerns about online content; legislative debates about design features almost always end up focusing on disfavored user speech. Some core speech elements are usually characterized as design features, and restrictions on the elements that might be separated from concerns about specific content, like infinite scroll or autoplay, would still have to survive a fairly high level of scrutiny –at least intermediate scrutiny– under US law.

Looking forward

On a brighter note, Ambassador Shoulgin-Nyoni addressed the opportunities arising for Swedish leadership in facing the problems addressed so far. She highlighted that about 30% of the budget of Swedish aid agencies goes to human rights and democracy. She underscored that the Swedish effort is gaining traction: given the size of the challenges and the scarcity of resources, and as we see States falling away from these issues, more and more smaller and medium-sized countries have realized the need to act together and complementarily.

Speaking of the commonalities among the tendencies discussed, Chantal Joris mentioned some advocacy points. First, she called to defend the expression of those who disagree with us, especially in highly polarized environments. She also called for experts in civil society to pay attention to nuances and not get too carried away with the “good intentions” behind regulations, focusing on the chilling effects and problematic aspects of technical solutions such as age verification. She also advocated for keeping human rights law as a common language and for working at the domestic level, protecting the rule of law and fundamental freedoms to foster confidence in the international legal order. She ended by pointing to some recent wins that were picked up elsewhere by several governments, for instance around the use of Palantir by state actors. She emphasized that freedom of information requests, investigative journalism and good advocacy campaigns can still be effective.

Building on her last thematic report, Irene Khan addressed the collusion between governments and big tech oligarchs. She emphasized that while international human rights standards have stood the test of time, the system that places States as the primary duty-bearers is coming under increasing pressure due to the growing asymmetry of power between large platforms and most States. This is exacerbated when governments collaborate with those companies to further their own political goals, allowing platforms to profit while disregarding their human rights responsibilities. She added that the cost of such lack of accountability is mainly borne by women being attacked, children being endangered online, and journalists losing their jobs due to how platforms profit from their work. To put human rights back at the center of the conversation, she proposed, first of all, broad, multi-stakeholder coalition-building. Second, to hold governments to account when they seek to legitimize prohibited speech or to prohibit legitimate expression, States need to strengthen institutions that can act as counterweights. Third, she referred to the need for States to break the big tech monopoly and to create an enabling environment for independent media and research. Finally, she highlighted the importance of exploring new ideas on how to address regulation and create alternative information spaces, especially in the global south, where resources are most needed.